The Chief Justice: If you in the Mahometan empire committed an offence against the religion of the State, instead of receiving an impartial and patient trial, as you have here, you would be devoted to instant death.
Mr. Carlile: Yes, my lord, and this shows how cool men should be, and how much consideration should be given to matter of opinion.
The Chief Justice: I cannot allow you to violate the laws of the land, and in affecting to defend yourself, to commit a repetition of the offence.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, the entire case is a matter of opinion. I shall now proceed to read some passages from the writings of Doctor Geddes, the translator of the Hebrew Testament. That celebrated man was educated a Catholic priest, and was one of the most learned and able men of his day. Here he read a number of passages from Doctor Geddes, he was proceeding to read further, when The Attorney-General said, that if the defendant were thus allowed to proceed, he saw no termination to the trial; if permitted, the defendant might continue to read every work published on the gospel. What the defendant was reading had no relation whatever to the charge, and he should not be allowed to occupy the time of the Court.
The Chief Justice: The work the defendant is now reading is very different from the publication of Paine. Dr. Geddes observes on the five books of Moses, and expresses his doubts as to some of them.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, Dr. Geddes doubts some parts of the Bible, and Mr. Paine's publication doubted some part of it.
The Chief Justice: No; the publication of Paine does not go to express doubts, but it impugns the Bible; it says that the entire of the Bible is a tissue of falsehood and imposition.
Here the foreman of the jury said that the jury felt great reluctance in interfering with the defendant; but they felt it necessary to say that the course he was taking did not seem to them to bear on his case.
Mr. Carlile: Then I cannot see what will bear on my case; prejudice has been excited against me, and I am to be crushed.
The Chief Justice: If you will be crushed, it must be by the weight of your publication. If you have done something that cannot be defended without impugning the law of England, then you cannot be allowed to go into that kind of defence.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, I don't see that the law is against me.
The Chief Justice: Sir, I have already given my opinion on this point.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, you said that by the recent statute, but one of the provisions of the Act of William and Mary was repealed. I say that the three provisions were repealed.
The Chief Justice: Well, sir, that is your opinion; it is for the jury to say whether they will take the law from you or from me.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, the law is a very dubious thing.
The Chief Justice: Your course is very wrong. If you urge matter irrelevant, it is a loss of time; if you urge what is profane, it is still worse.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, what was written by Mr. Paine was also written by other eminent men, who were not prosecuted.
The Chief Justice: It does not follow that if the offences of those men were not punished, that others are to follow the same course with impunity.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, Mr. Gibbon has attacked the Christian religion in the most insidious manner. I am at liberty to go into its examination.
The Chief Justice: I say you are not; you are not at liberty to do anything to question the divine origin of Christianity.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, I am a man of humble life, and therefore I am prosecuted. Mr. Gibbon, far from being prosecuted, held an office under the Crown. Mr. Hume, who far exceeded Paine in his attacks on religion – Hume, also, was an Atheist – was sent as Secretary to an Embassy to Paris, and had afterwards a pension of £600 a year. He was never prosecuted, and never questioned, but by the people of the country. My lord, if I am in error, let me be convinced by argument; but let me not be thrown into a prison by those who are formed in concert to crush me.
The Chief Justice: If you attribute anything of concert to me, you attribute that which I am altogether free from. I am here discharging my duty as a judge of the land, and the first dictate of that duty is not to allow the character of the Christian religion to be assailed.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, if you deny one part of the Christian religion you destroy the whole. The first principles of the Christian religion is the belief in the divinity of Christ – the Unitarians do not believe so, yet they are protected by the law; they believe that Christ was the messenger of God, and that he performed some miracles – that he raised from the dead. The statute law protects the Unitarians, and will it be said that the same law does not also apply to those who, like the Unitarians, do not believe in the divinity of Christ? I hold up that statute as the shield of my protection – I have stated the law which tolerated the impugning of the Holy Trinity. If the statute was not passed I never would have published those works. The jury must know that public opinion is liable to-change. Since the convictions that took place for publishing "The Age of Reason", I thought I saw the change in public opinion manifested in this Act of the Legislature. "The Age of Reason" inculcates morality; it is as perfect in this respect as any book that ever was published of the same kind. If, however, I am in error, a loathsome prison is not likely to convince me of my error. My lord, one half of the people of this country are Deists – thousands of persons hold the same opinions that I do, but their situations in life will not allow them to express those opinions. I believe in one God, and no more. The same law that protects others should protect me. The law is express, and if I am not to get its protection, it is of no use to the subject. My lord, I have made great arrangements for my trial, but in consequence of the interruptions I have received, my line of defence is broken down. It was my intention to examine thirty or forty witnesses who should express what their belief is. They are of different sects, yet they are all tolerated, because their belief does not militate against the interests of the priests of this country. I also would produce persons to speak as to my moral conduct – persons who have known me since I was thirteen years of age, and who could swear that I have ever conducted myself as a peaceable and industrious citizen, and as a moral member of society. I do not wish to occupy unnecessarily the public time, but there have been cases of much less importance – the case of Sacheverell, who was tried for holding the doctrine of passive obedience – a doctrine which is now publicly preached from the pulpits of this metropolis, and is hailed by the present system of government; his case took up ten days. Trials for high treason, founded on the most frivolous charges, which were attempted to be worked up to high treason, and which were not of half so much importance as the question between me and the Attorney-General, took up many days. The Attorney-General, in this question, has left his case to be made out by the Court; he has failed to make it out himself. But I will not take the law from the Court; the jury are my judges; I will not take the dictum of his lordship. I cannot sit down without going further into my defence, unless it is positively decided that I shall not proceed.
The Chief Justice: You must not deny the truth of the Christian religion, nor are you to go into irrelevant matter; if I am wrong you can appeal to the Court of King's Bench.
Mr. Carlile: By what means can I appeal to the Court of King's Bench when I am confined within the walls of a prison?
The Chief Justice: I know nothing of the walls of a prison. If I am wrong in point of law, you will be entitled to the benefit of my error.
Mr. Carlile: The law tolerates those who deny the Trinity – therefore it tolerates Deists. I have been frequently interrupted by the Attorney-General; it is, I believe, the first time an Attorney-General has at-tempted to dictate to à defendant what line of defence he should pursue – that at least should be left to the Court. My lord, the work of Dr. Geddes is a fair examination of the Hebrew Scriptures.
The Chief Justice: Geddes doubts some points – Paine denies all.
Mr. Carlile: Paine, my lord, I consider one of the finest writers; his "Age of Reason" is one of the most useful and able works that have been published. My lord, I am prepared with matter to show that in all ages great doubts were entertained of the truth of the Christian religion – and that the works of the Fathers were composed of the most idle and ridiculous tales. Most of them professed to work miracles.
The Chief Justice said these works had no bearing on the question.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, I am left then without a defence. There are two books, one is protected by an Act of Parliament, and the other I am not allowed to-support.
The Chief Justice: I cannot let men be acquitted of a charge of violating the law because they are unbelievers.
Mr. Carlile: Everything that is true should be allowed. Another part of my defence is to show the general persecution that has existed since the commencement of Christianity – that same system of persecution is now exerted against me; because I have published certain opinions, I am to be sent to prison without a defence. My lord, for the truth of opinions hundreds have been burnt in Smithfield and thousands on the Continent. The Attorney-General, I am sure, would pursue me to the stake with the same pleasure and avidity that he now pursues me to a prison.
The Chief Justice: You have no right to say that.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, I shall now proceed to a short examination of a statement made by Bishop Burnet. The Bishop says "that damnation is repugnant to the wisdom and mercy of God". He says in his charge to-the clergy that they should not give their real opinions to the world. He says, that the idea of hell is as ridiculous as the idea of Transubstantiation. But it should be recollected, however ridiculous it may appear, hundreds have suffered death for maintaining it; and though he treats it as absurd it was a few years before his time the sacred doctrine professed by the Christian world, venerated as ancient, and revered as the essence of the established religion of his country. Here he went into a recital of some observations of distinguished authors, on the dignity of avowing the truth: Tacitus exclaimed, when will the blessed time arrive when men may think without awe and speak without danger. Milton, Bacon and Boyle expressed themselves in the like terms; but the Attorney-General said he would send me to a prison, merely because I would uphold what I think to be true; not that my opinions are different from his; no, I could hold up the hand of fellowship to Sir Robert Gifford, he is a Unitarian, and a Unitarian is a Deist. If I am once found guilty, I know well that no objections will avail me. I shall be placed in the hands of those who are now my prosecutors.
The Chief Justice: I repeat it, if I am wrong in point of law, you will be entitled to rectify that mistake by applying to the Court of King's Bench. I shall, indeed, myself consult the Court on the subject.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, I have no faith in the Court; I hope for no indulgence – my defence rests on matter of opinion, not of law. Where legislatures enact laws against opinion, their acts are a nullity and absurdity. My lord, I have no hope of bringing the jury round to my opinion; but I had a strong hope that if I was allowed to proceed I should show that I had some reasons to doubt, and that I might have doubted without a malicious intention.
The Chief Justice: I have not excluded you from that line of defence. You may, if you can, show that your intentions were innocent; but you cannot, and must not do that by impeaching the Holy Scriptures.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, there are some parts of the Scriptures which Paine has not touched on, or to which he has slightly alluded; for instance, the Songs of Solomon in the Old Testament. These contain the most voluptuous tales – it was my intention to read them – and then I would ask you, gentlemen of the jury, whether you would put into the hands of your children that book in preference to "The Age of Reason"? The Bible contains tales which no young mind can read un-contaminated. "The Age of Reason" rescues the character of the Deity from the degraded situation in which the Bible placed it, and instead of suppressing the works of Paine by prosecutions, a statue should be erected in this hall sacred to his memory – in this hall, and in every public place in this country. My lord, there were fifty Gospels afloat until the councils of Nice and Laodicea collected them, and selected these Gospels out of them which are now professed by Christians. I am not precluded from showing you the authority of these Councils. The early Christians were celebrated for persecuting each other. [Here he referred to "Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History". After reading some passages, the Court asked with what object he proceeded? He replied, he read it to show that the New Testament was no gift of God to man.]
The Chief Justice: In this Court we assume that the Christian religion is true. I am anxious to give every possible latitude of defence, but I cannot permit the introduction of blasphemy; I cannot allow this day's proceedings to form a precedent that might be dangerous in future times.
Mr. Carlile: I wish to show that there are some reasons to doubt.
The Chief Justice: The publication you are now to answer for does not express doubts; but it calumniates and reviles the Christian religion. You cannot justify by denying the truth of the Christian religion.
Mr. Carlile: Your decision, my lord, sets aside the statute.
The Chief Justice: I have given my opinion on the statute. It is useless, and it certainly is not decorous, to contend against that opinion now. If it be a wrong one, you will have an opportunity of rectifying it.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, I feel that I do not stand in a Court of Justice; but that I stand in an Inquisition, where I am prevented from going into my defence.
The Chief Justice: You stand in a Court where the Christian religion must be observed as the law of the land, and where no man is allowed to revile it; you stand in a Court willing and most anxious to give you the full benefit of every fair, legal and decorous defence.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, I am persecuted because these publications are directed against the revenues of the Church. If it were not for this the publication would be safe. How many odious and absurd doctrines have been tolerated, nay, supported in this country? Johanna Southcote had twenty thousand followers in this country – she was encouraged in her impious and indecent conduct – whilst the publisher of "The Age of Reason" is prosecuted, but not allowed to be defended. My lord, I shall now take leave to show you the persecutions which Luther endured. That persecution originated in the same spirit that now assails me. Luther was the son of a Saxon minister; he was sent to a school in Magdeburg, but was afterwards obliged to beg for his bread; he wrote against the authority of the Pope and the practices of the Church of Rome, and he was denounced as a heretic. He was grievously persecuted for maintaining what he considered truth, and if the Court is not prepared to defend that persecution, his lordship cannot defend his own conduct nor the conduct of the Attorney-General as against me. If Luther was exposed to a trial of this kind – if, like me he was prevented from entering into a defence – he would never have been able to carry the Reformation into effect; but happily for him, before the Pope could lay his hands on him, he found a friend in the Elector of Saxony; if it were not for that fortunate circumstance, the pious Christians of those days would have committed him to the flames. The Attorney-General, like the Friar Hiegostratus, who advised the Pope to commit Luther to the flames, now calls for my conviction to send me to a dungeon, to have my family ruined, and to prevent me from ever rising in the world by any effort of care and of industry. Luther was summoned before the Council. He attempted to defend himself on grounds of argument, but he would not be heard, and finding that his person was in danger, he was obliged to fly. He was excommunicated, he was interdicted, he was hunted down like a wild beast, but this he bore for conscience sake. He had the idea of truth, and when the mind of man is impressed with that heavenly sentiment, he will suffer a hero and a martyr to his principles. Though humble my efforts, yet, like the great reformer, I am impressed with the justice and propriety of the course I have taken. It will not be denied, my lord, that sometimes it is necessary to resist power; nay, sometimes to resist law. It is too often the case that the propagators of new doctrines fall victims to their principles. Luther, Calvin and Knox might be said to be the only exceptions. My lord, falsehood will not bear the light of enquiry, but truth is powerful, it is impossible to stop it; it is not perverseness in me to propagate what I conceive to be for the good of man; like Luther, the mind of a sincere believer, whatever his doctrines may be, would rather perish than retract, while unconscious of error. My lord, I cannot but consider that the same persecuting spirit that harassed him is now directed against me; it is true that the Roman Catholic religion in his day had no Attorney-General, but it had its Inquisition, its accusing officers, the ministers of its vengeance, and the creatures of its power.
He then attempted to show that there was no evidence of the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ, insisted on the alleged discrepancy between the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, and was entering on an argument to prove that the latter Gospel was not written by St. Luke, when he was interrupted by the Attorney-General. He observed on the consequences of the toleration granted to Unitarians by statute 53 Geo. III, whom, he said, he considered as Deists. He had been denied every opportunity of showing, even from Eusebius, that the books of the New Testament were not written by the persons whose names they bore in our version. He had intended to be prepared the next morning with a list of the names of the persons to whom they had been attributed before the Councils of Laodicea and Nice, but in consequence of having been interrupted in his intended line of defence, everything was in confusion and derangement with him. He had an extract to produce from St. Chrysostom, which stated that there was no evidence that the books of the New Testament were the writings of those who are commonly supposed to be their authors. Was it not then severe that he should be punished for his industry in searching out truth, and endeavoring to diffuse it among the public, for he had most studiously examined all the works written as evidences of Christianity, from Eusebius and Origen down to Addison? They had not convinced him. He had been charged with publishing the work for the purpose of brutalising and demoralising his country; but it was not true. He loved his country with ardor, and his object had been to instruct, enlighten and improve it. The system of morals which now obtained in it was founded on error – true morality could not rest on error – and his intentions in printing the works of Mr. Paine had been to dissipate that error, by calling reasonable men to the investigation and trial of it – and it was for this he was to be persecuted, condemned and punished. He was not to be confuted by argument, but crushed and overwhelmed by penalties. It behoved the jury to look well to it whether he deserved to be given up by them for what had originated from nothing but pure motives. If he was in the right, would it not be most unjust? If he was not, would not such means taken to suppress his opinions cause them to spread the wider? Had not persecution always had that effect; and was it for the present enlightened age to be taxed with attempting to put down opinions by torture and imprisonment? He had intended, had he not been interrupted in his defence, to read to-morrow morning extracts from Bolingbroke, Gibbon and Hume, who had evidently held the same principles with Mr. Paine, and who had published their principles in their writings, though these had passed unnoticed and unobserved by any former Attorney-General. The works of Bolingbroke went quite as far as Mr. Paine. Gibbon had adopted a different mode of attack; he meant the same thing as Mr. Paine, but he did not go about it in so honest a way. Paine proceeded fairly and openly – Gibbon insidiously. Hume went farther than either of these, for he even composed a defence of Atheism. Why had all these escaped with impunity, and Paine and he (Mr. Carlile) to be singled out as victims? The tendency of Mr. Paine's system was to enlarge and elevate the mind, by removing the erroneous and false, and inspiring true notions of the Deity; not to sink and degrade it as alleged by the Attorney-General. But whatever might follow his attempt to render them known in this country (for it should be recollected that the two last tracts had not been before published here), something would be suspected from the Attorney-General's preventing him from pursuing the line of defence he had marked out. Why was the information against him founded not on the statutes the 9th and 10th of William III., but on the common law? What was the common law? It was supposed to reside in the breast of the judge. But what one judge in one term, or in one Court, laid down to be common law, another judge in another term pronounced not to be common law; nay, the same judge frequently varied from his own opinion, and over-ruled what he had on former occasions decided to be law. Let a law be given which people could understand… He had framed a most extensive system of defence; he had been prepared to lay before them passages from the works of the most eminent divines in different ages, enforcing and insisting on the duty of allowing a full freedom of opinion in religious matters; but he found himself precluded from what he had contemplated, which was the only defence in his power. For he maintained, that if a man did any act, and was then precluded from justifying that act, he was precluded from, and deprived of his natural defence. The first reformers of religion were generally and deservedly applauded for their spirit and boldness, yet they might as well have been prosecuted in their day as himself. Luther ventured much farther than he had, for he had no statute law on which to rest a justification of his conduct, as he (Mr. Carlile) had. It seemed to him that the Legislature, in passing the statute to which he had so frequently referred, had at length seen and acknowledged the propriety of indulging all persons in a free profession and discussion of their tenets in religion. He had heard most intelligent men say it was a toleration of Deism, and in that light, after the most deliberate reflection, he had looked on it. Deism had been much abused; but what was Deism? It was a belief in one God; and it might as well be opposed to polytheism or idolatry, or any of the ancient systems of superstition, as to the doctrine of the Trinity. But the creed of the Trinity was not in any wise essential to morality of life and rectitude of conduct. Greece and Rome boasted of citizens equal, if not superior, in all the virtues which can adorn men, to any ever trained under the Christian code. It was in vain for him to take up any other volume at present. His whole defence rested on one point. From that he had been debarred, and, in consequence, was disabled from proceeding further into his defence that evening. He had an immense number of witnesses to produce, who would say that his moral character, in every particular, had been at all times unimpeachable; also a vast number ta describe the variety of religions, systems and tenets, held even among Christians. Many of them had been subpoenaed, and more would be subpoenaed to-morrow. But he thought it due to him, when the interruptions he had suffered was taken into consideration, that the Court should adjourn till to-morrow morning. His whole line of defence had been thrown into confusion, and he was totally unable to continue it till to-morrow.
The Chief Justice: What then am I to understand?
Mr. Carlile: That in consequence of the interruption I have met with, I am unable to proceed in my defence to-night, and therefore request that the trial may be adjourned till to-morrow morning.
The Chief Justice: For the purpose of examining witnesses only.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, I have not been allowed this day to read any of the books to the jury I had intended, in order to justify what I am charged with as an offence. I should wish to read some of them, as well as to have witnesses examined.
The Chief Justice: It is not competent to me as a judge, sitting here and expounding the law of England, to permit you to read Bolingbroke, or Gibbon, or Hume or any author who denies the Christian religion to be true, or the Holy Scriptures to be of divine authority, neither can any witnesses be examined who may be brought forward to assert either of these things. As to your moral character it is not at present in question.
Mr. Carlile: Certainly, my lord, I conceive it is.
The Chief Justice: You appealed to me; hear me to the end, that you may see why evidence of that nature would be useless and irrelevant. All evidence to character applies itself and corresponds to the charge against the accused. When a man is charged with murder, he brings forward witnesses to prove that he had the reputation of being humane and benevolent, and not one likely to commit such an offence; in the same manner of robbery, or any other charge. Your moral character, at least in the common sense of the word, is not impeached, therefore there would be a waste of time to disprove an accusation not made. You propose to call witnesses, to state the different systems of religious belief among Christians, all that I should reject as being utterly irrelevant to your case. If the book you are charged with publishing attacked the opinions of any particular sect, it might be relevant, but yours is an attack on all the systems of Christianity that ever were known in the world. Perhaps there are some persons here who will speak to your character now.
Mr. Carlile: I am not aware there are, my lord.
The Chief Justice: But there should have been if you wished to produce evidence of that nature.
Mr. Carlile: I had subpoenaed a number of the leaders of different sects to explain their various doctrines, and the grounds on which they held them; and the inference I proposed to make from their testimony was, that the grounds of their different creeds might be examined into.
The Chief Justice: I certainly could not suffer these to be examined into; they would go for nothing, as you are charged with doing that which would subvert all Christian faith, unless they would lead to a denial of the truth of the Christian religion, or of the Divine authority of the Scriptures, which I would not permit.
Mr. Carlile: Certainly I think it would be very useful to me to put some Unitarians in that box, and have them declare their opinion on the Trinity, which ultimately would come to what Mr. Paine has advanced.
The Chief Justice: If so, I would not hear them.
Mr. Carlile: I also intended to read the opinions of several most eminent divines who inculcate perfect freedom of opinion in religion.
The Chief Justice: Well, if you are not prepared with them, it is not my fault.
Mr. Carlile: Certainly not, my lord. It was also my intention to have persons examined who would state the great variance that exists between the original Hebrew and the authorised version of the Bible here – this is of great consequence to me.
The Chief Justice: Neither would I receive any evidence meant to impugn the correctness of our authorised version of the Scriptures.
Mr. Carlile: Mr. Bellamy asserts it contains passages not in the original Hebrew, and which ought to be expunged.
The Chief Justice: The book against which the information is directed is not an attack on detached passages, but on the very substance and essence of the Bible.
Mr. Carlile: Then, my lord, I pray you to adjourn the Court, to give me an opportunity of quoting the opinions of Locke and others on universal toleration.
The Chief Justice: You ought to have been prepared with them now; but at all events it will do you no injury if they are not read. Everyone is agreed on the reasonableness of permitting a freedom of thinking on, and discussing religious subjects, as long as the discussion is conducted in a calm, temperate manner; and if your object is to impress this truth, the quoting these writers is to no purpose, but if you would quote them to disprove Christianity, I would not suffer them to be heard. So take it either way, adjourning the trial would be of no use to you.
Mr. Carlile: Then, my lord, am I to understand that you refuse my request to adjourn the trial?
The Chief Justice: You have not advanced any proper or relevant ground to induce the Court to consent to an adjournment.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, it is of great consequence to me to prove to the world, that though I may be sent to a prison for three or four years, I have acted in all the relations of life as a conscientious moral man. I again entreat, my lord, you will suffer the trial to be adjourned. I have much important matter to introduce to-morrow morning. I have done all that any mortal could do. I have stood the whole of this day without any refreshment but water; in fact, I am so confused, that I scarcely have a recollection of anything.